An Inconvenient Truth

[No Mo Moss]

You're right though. I do hope it is politicized. I do hope that the party of "there is no such thing as global warming" has so much egg on their greedy little oil gulping faces that they can never recover as a whole. I just hope NY city doesn't have to be under water to demonstrate the legitamacy of it.

That's more like it. I hate when there is a facade of moderation.

What will you say when we go back to a normal storm season in 2006?

We're Lucky, that's what I'll say.

[SkinBasket]

You're right though. I do hope it is politicized. I do hope that the party of "there is no such thing as global warming" has so much egg on their greedy little oil gulping faces that they can never recover as a whole. I just hope NY city doesn't have to be under water to demonstrate the legitamacy of it.

That's more like it. I hate when there is a facade of moderation.

What will you say when we go back to a normal storm season in 2006?

Then all the tree humpers will claim that their efforts saved the world, that's what they'll say.

Didn't NYC get put underwater in one of those asteroid movies too? Maybe we can all blame Republicans, conservatives, GW, and Dick "Lick the nut sack" Cheney for the absolute scientific certainty that will happen too.

[No Mo Moss]

So let me get this straight. If we have a mild storm season this upcoming year, then the global warming problem is a myth.

That sounds like a bunch a crap.

Here's the thing I don't understand. The righties spend so much energy resisting global warming, but why. Why so subborn about it?

Are you afraid we might actually get up to speed with the present and begin structuring our culture around environmentally sound business and industry?

Perhaps the overall health of the planet just isn't important? It takes zero scientific data to see we live in a disposable culture that isn't viable for the future.

Maybe our water supplies are too clean for you?

With so much energy exhausted by righties to refute Global warming you just have to wonder of such things. I mean even if you are right and their is no global warming, what is the big scam or downfall or repurcussion of dealing with our environmentally irresponsible nature? Perhaps caring about cancer in your children or clean air in the future is just too "tree huggerish" for your taste. If you're right and I'm wrong, we still have everything to gain.

But if I'm right and we do nothing, we are so F*cking screwed with no way back. If destroying the planet is even a slight option wouldn't you think it makes sense to pro-proactive in averting it. All the wars and ADT home alarm systems and border security or WMD's won't make a bit of difference. Why wouldn't you want to be prepared? If we're right you might change things for the better, if we're wrong you still change things for the better.

It simply makes no sense at all.

Are you guys lobbiests?

[esoxx]

Whatever happened to the impending Ice Age that used to be the scare alert in the 1970's? I'm confused. Is the Ice Age advancing upon as science warned back then or was that just a rumor. Can't keep things straight here on my scorecard.

Scientists can make any prediction they want based on their "studies." How do you think they get funding, by saying everything is just honky dory? They'd be out of business in no time.

[SkinBasket]

So let me get this straight. If we have a mild storm season this upcoming year, then the global warming problem is a myth.

That sounds like a bunch a crap.

So we have one bad year of weather and global warming is absolute truth?

Here's the thing I don't understand. The righties spend so much energy resisting global warming, but why. Why so subborn about it?

I could ask you the same thing.

Are you afraid we might actually get up to speed with the present and begin structuring our culture around environmentally sound business and industry?

If you haven't noticed the US is a world leader in clean energy tech. Meanwhile, while our government and industry spend billions on R and D and implementation, China, India, Africa, and *gasp* Europe continue to "destroy the planet" with their own industialization.

Perhaps the overall health of the planet just isn't important? It takes zero scientific data to see we live in a disposable culture that isn't viable for the future.

Maybe our water supplies are too clean for you?

I like my water supplies just fine. Sometimes with a twist of lemon.

With so much energy exhausted by righties to refute Global warming you just have to wonder of such things.

Please. Do you really want to compare money and time spent trying to prove global warming, then every attempt to link it to any number of sources versus the time and money spent refuting it? Do you really think that "righties" will be on the heavier end of that scale?

I mean even if you are right and their is no global warming, what is the big scam or downfall or repurcussion of dealing with our environmentally irresponsible nature? Perhaps caring about cancer in your children or clean air in the future is just too "tree huggerish" for your taste. If you're right and I'm wrong, we still have everything to gain.

Gains like trillion of dollars spent on ineffective government programs? Or maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs lost to less clean overseas industry? You think the defecit is big now?

But if I'm right and we do nothing, we are so F*cking screwed with no way back. If destroying the planet is even a slight option wouldn't you think it makes sense to pro-proactive in averting it. All the wars and ADT home alarm systems and border security or WMD's won't make a bit of difference. Why wouldn't you want to be prepared? If we're right you might change things for the better, if we're wrong you still change things for the better.

Your cute little graph showed that things are changing for the better (until the made up part anyway). Also, I doubt the planet is going to be destroyed by global warming. We may be, but certainly not the planet. I'm sure it will do just fine no matter what happens.

It simply makes no sense at all.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Are you guys lobbiests?

If that means I'm not Chiken Little and I don't jump up and scream that the world is on the brink of disaster whenever Time magazine or Al Gore tells me to, then I guess I'm a lobbiest. Now if you had asked if I'm a lobbyist, then I would have to say no.

After all this I still have no idea what it is you even want to do about "global warming." Do you want to have our government hogtie American businesses until they are even less competetive globally? What are you going to do to stop foreign polluters? Are you willing to attack China or India in the name of cleaner air and a better world? If not, then all the clean world tech we implement here is worth about crap, maybe a little less.

But continue on with your Al Gore daisy chain. Demonize "righties," big business, GW, and whoever else it takes yo make you feel better about the fact that the "lefties" in government are just as active as the "righties" when it comes to global warming.[/i]

[Scott Campbell]

Per hour of operation, a power lawn mower emits 10-12 times as much hydrocarbon as a typical auto.

Are you talking about the old 2 cycle motors, or the new federally mandated 4 stroke motors?

[No Mo Moss]

4 stroke

SKIN:
First of all it was the US that walked away from Kyoto. Kind of hard to show the world what we're made of when it comes to clean energy when we walk away from the definitive summit on the reform towards it.

Second we are not the world leader of clean energy in the world. That is a completely ficticious statistic ala bill O'Reilly or some crap. You totally discredit yourself when you say stupid crap like that. The United States is THE biggest polluter in the entire world!

Perhaps you should check it out before you say things you don't know.

The United States makes up for 4.6% of the world population.
It represents 30% of the world economy.
It represent 24% of Global CO2 emmisions

European Union countries make up for 6.3% of the world population.
They represent 23% of the world economy.
They represent 14% of Global CO2 emmisions.

China makes up for 21% of the world population.
It represents 3.2% of the world economy.
It represents 13% of Global CO2 emmisions.

China and the EU, both lesser polluters than the US, have one thing in common: They are both committed to further reducing their rate of emissions. Despite economic growth China has cut emissions by 17% since the mid 1990s. The odd one out is the USA. Immensely richer than China, but with less population than Europe, it emits more harmful chemicals than both of them. In addition, it has so far stubbornly refused to endorse international protocols designed to reduce such emissions. The world looks on flabbergasted as the world's greatest polluter cares not to take care or responsibility in the face of international pressure.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No Mo,

I really applaud your efforts to spread the word on global warming!

I do agree with Clinton & Bush on Kyoto Treaty, however. That was a bad deal for U.S, exempting India & China was unreasonable. Hopefully a new protocol will be brought forward.

I would be happy if Al Gore was elected president in 2008, just because of environmental issues.

[Deputy Nutz]

Did someone say tree humper???


See Murphy below going to town on a young sapling.

[Patler]

So far I have lived through:

1. The coming of the next ice age, caused by
2. An increasing thickness of the ozone layer, due to
3. Ozone propellants in spray aerosol cans.

So, everyone went to pump applicators and alternative propellants, refrigerants etc..
Now we have:

4. An expanding hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica (bring back those propellants)
5. Global warming, caused by
6. CO2 emissions.

Am I going to freeze to death, roast to death or be incinerated by the sun due to the lack of a protective ozone layer?

Its safe to say that while the scientific community can measure with great accuracy what we do and what certain atmospheric conditions are, they by no means agree on any causal relationship between the two. Some long range meteorologists (the ones who study a 1000 years like we consider yesterday or tomorrow) will tell you all we are experiencing are normal swings. Others will disagree.

Basically, we don't have a clue.

[SkinBasket]

SKIN:
First of all it was the US that walked away from Kyoto. Kind of hard to show the world what we're made of when it comes to clean energy when we walk away from the definitive summit on the reform towards it.

KYOTO?! Are you fucking serious? The "definitive summit" on reform? Ha! Becuase the UN has so many great, non-biased, scientifically based ideas for making the world better? LOL!

Whew... Good one!

Second we are not the world leader of clean energy in the world. That is a completely ficticious statistic ala bill O'Reilly or some crap. You totally discredit yourself when you say stupid crap like that. The United States is THE biggest polluter in the entire world!

Perhaps you should check it out before you say things you don't know.

The United States makes up for 4.6% of the world population.
It represents 30% of the world economy.
It represent 24% of Global CO2 emmisions

European Union countries make up for 6.3% of the world population.
They represent 23% of the world economy.
They represent 14% of Global CO2 emmisions.

China makes up for 21% of the world population.
It represents 3.2% of the world economy.
It represents 13% of Global CO2 emmisions.

So maybe if I google some numbers that say something different and make them REAL BIG then I wouldn't sound so "stupid" right? BTW, I said the US is a leader in clean air technology, not in pollution. You may want to get the argument straight before launching such a large-lettered offensive next time.

China and the EU, both lesser polluters than the US, have one thing in common: They are both committed to further reducing their rate of emissions. Despite economic growth China has cut emissions by 17% since the mid 1990s. The odd one out is the USA. Immensely richer than China, but with less population than Europe, it emits more harmful chemicals than both of them. In addition, it has so far stubbornly refused to endorse international protocols designed to reduce such emissions. The world looks on flabbergasted as the world's greatest polluter cares not to take care or responsibility in the face of international pressure.

NoMo, if you really think that the US is doing less than China (not to mention India and Africa) to curb pollution, then you certainly haven't taken a look at what's been happening in this country the past 20 years. Wind, geothermal, hydro, solar, cleaner burning gasoline, clean coal tech, to name a few. The world is not coming to an end. You can go dig up your life savings from under the tree in the back yard.

If a worse than average hurricane season is the best imperical evidence of impending doom and signing the Kyoto "treaty" is the only solution you have to offer, then well, may the spirits of the earth bless your goofy little green soul.

[SkinBasket]

Did someone say tree humper???


See Murphy below going to town on a young sapling.

I still think that's my uncle, not Murphy. He wasn't a tree humper though, just a self-styled communist. But he does like Al Gore a lot.

[MJZiggy]

What is there to lose by living life a little greener? Damn, that's right. We might be able to eat fish without a side of mercury straight from the stream in our town and let the kids play around in that stream without worry. That would be horrible. We might be able to breathe our air without wondering where all this asthma is coming from or worry that the air pollution is increasing our kids' risk of cancer. I read that people who live in polluted areas are more likely to drop dead of heart attacks. Paying attention to that and stopping it must have a horrible cost. Wait, it's happening all over Europe--they're driving SmartCars while we're lumbering around in SUV's. They have Eurorail and better public transportation to our busses that smell like urine. Hmmm.

[SkinBasket]

They have Eurorail and better public transportation to our busses that smell like urine. Hmmm.

From all accounts I've heard, their buses smell like urine too.

[jack's smirking revenge]

A short article from the New Zealand Press. We can debate the impact to the US of global warming, but it is having profound effects elsewhere in the world. Global Warming is doing more than just melting icecaps. Its making land "unuseable". The second article is from the BBC. We're facing a difficult time ahead. While we debate over global warming and whether or not it is really affecting us, overpopulation by 2050 is a guarantee (unless we encounter a massive natural correction). And it has been shown that global warming IS affecting certain areas of the global where, coincidentally, populations are supposed to greatly increase in the coming decades. Think this doesn't affect you? This is America. We're the saviors of the world. We're already spending a billion dollars a month to colonize a nation. We'll have to spend even more to fix other problems around the world....

Global Population Too High..
A New Zealand scientist from the Central Institute of Technology says the present global population of six billion people is about 30% more than the earth's biological capacity to sustain present standards of living, but growth may not even stabilize at the projected 10 billion by the year 2050. There are 51 billion hectares on the earth's surface, but only 1.3 billion hectares are available as arable land, 3.3 billion hectares available as pasture land.

The world needs to immediately reduce by 1/2 its carbon dioxide emissions, yet United Nations' member countries have only agreed to reduce it by 5% by 2012. The United States puts out 20 tonnes of CO2 per capita, in comparison with New Zealand, which produces about four tonnes per capita. January 27, 2000 The New Zealand Press

Widespread Decline in the World's Ecosystems.
The human impact on natural ecosystems has reached dangerous levels, even significantly altering the Earth's basic chemical cycles, says a new report, World Resources 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems, The Fraying Web of Life. The report paints a dismal picture of over-fished oceans, over-pumping of water for farming, destruction of coral reefs and forests, even too much tourism, with human population growth and increasing consumption as the two principal drivers of the decline. The report was released by the the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNEP, the World Bank and the Washington DC-based World Resources Institute (WRI). Over 175 scientists contributed to this global research effort, which took more than two years to complete. The report grades the health of coastal, forest, grassland, and freshwater and agricultural ecosystems on the basis of their ability to produce the goods and services that the world currently relies on. "For too long we have focused on how much we can take from our ecosystems, with little attention to the services that they provide," said Thomas Johansson, Director of UNDP's Energy and Atmosphere Programme. "Ecosystems provide essential services like climate control and nutrient recycling that we cannot replace at any reasonable price." The world's population has tripled since 1980, to the current 6 billion people, and is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050. By then, economists predict that the global economy may expand by a factor of five. Consumption of everything from rice to paper to refrigerators to oil has risen in tandem with the population -- all at a cost to ecosystems. Demand for rice, wheat, and maize is expected to grow 40% by 2020, pushing water demand for irrigation up 50% or more. By 2050, demand for wood could double. The sponsors of the report said that the study faced limitations and called for a larger, more comprehensive effort to monitor and compile information on current ecosystem conditions, and to analyze the effects of future changes in ecosystems. This larger effort is called the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and hopes to bring the best available information and knowledge on ecosystem goods and services to bear on policy and management decisions. September 15, 2000 BBC/World Resources Institute